Do the Ends Justify the Means?

[RyzeAbove]

I wanted to pose a moral question to you all and get some feedback. Do the ends justify the means? Is it a black and white issue? Does it depend on the situation? What are your thoughts?

 

[gsdx]

I think it depends on the situation and perspective. Let's use the example of John Wayne Gacey. He was caught, convicted, and sentenced to death for his crimes against all those young men. His death was justified. However, nothing can ever justify the deaths of those young men. I doubt if it was their intention to die when they went with Gacey, but it was Gacey's intention to kill them.

 

[Swellegant]

I don't think good ends ever justify evil means; sometimes there is a necessary evil, but it doesn't make the means right. It is instead a moral sacrifice, doing evil for a greater good. But the judgement of the greater good has to be overwhelming, and it has to be a consensus, and it has to be judged by close reasoning rather than by mob opinion.

In the case of capital punishment, as was suggested above, the end is achieved just as well by imprisonment; killing Gacy makes us all guilty of killing, just as he was guilty of killing. Whether or not that serves the greater good, I cannot say (I am rather ambivalent about the concept, I don't think much of punishment as a deterrent for crime, and am not entirely certain that death is or isn't a proper consequence for killing), and it's the function of government to make those moral sacrifices for us. But the end (being rid of Gacy) does not justify the means of achieving it (killing Gacy); it's just more complicated than that.

In another question of ends justifying means, take the question of killing in self-defense. Does killing someone else in order to save your life justify killing? I don't think it does. It's certainly understandable, perhaps even excusable, but it is not just, it is not right in and of itself. Murder in self-defense argues that one person's life (mine) is more valuable than someone else's; the fact that the someone else has potentially thrown off the protection of law by attempting an unlawful act (murdering me, allegedly) makes self-defense a legal right, but it still doesn't make the act of killing right. It assumes that my life is more important than anyone else's, and that is morally wrong.

On a somewhat smaller scale, take the question of Eminent Domain. Now, most of the freeway systems that are indespensable to our economic and social progress were built over the foundations of a lot of people's homes, homes that were bought out (sometimes at a fair price but sometimes not) via eminent domain laws. The loss of people's homes cannot be right, but does the need for the freeway system outweigh the needs of those people to live in those particular homes?

It's a very complicated question, the needs of the many over the needs of the few, perceived needs versus real needs, and a host of other differing viewpoints; but I don't think the ends justify the means. I guess what I'm saying is that you can't justify anything: it's either right or wrong, or some bizarre mixture of right and wrong, but there's no real in-between.

After all, there's no such thing as true grey... it's only white particles and black particles standing closely together.

 

[Andreus]

anything I have attained in life has felt empty if I wasnt happy with and enjoyed the process of attaining it.

so I'd have to say that the means have to justify the end, or the end is meaningless.

for me, anyway

it's my big problem with the concept of using war to attain peace

it just seems to be intelectually dishonest if the process undermines the goal

 

[Rali_hates_Mondays]

Animal testing? That is the ones for medical research- that's a perfect example of the ends justifying the means.

 

[RationalLunacy]

Ask me, and I will give you one answer.

Ask George W. Bush, and his answer will be quite different.

 

[NameTaken]

There are too many factors that vary with each situation to give an answer that would encompass them all.

 

[3nipples]

The means are reflected in the end.

 

[Croynan]

The issue(s), the circumstances and one's personal feelings, thoughts and emotions about all that are involved.

It really becomes a personal moral decision - and I don't think that can be applied to others.

The Musical: "The King and I" - Richard Rodgers and Oscar Hammerstein II

The Song: -"A Puzzlement"

King:

When I was a boy
World was better spot.
What was so was so,
What was not was not.
Now I am a man;
World have changed a lot.
Some things nearly so,
Others nearly not.
There are times I almost think
I am not sure of what I absolutely know.
Very often find confusion
In conclusion I concluded long ago
In my head are many facts
That, as a student, I have studied to procure,
In my head are many facts..
Of which I wish I was more certain I was sure!

[Spoken]
Is a puzzlement what to tell growing son?

[Sings]
What for instance, shall I say to him of women?
Shall I educate him on the ancient lines?
Shall I tell the boy as far as he is able,
To respect his wives and love his concubines?
Shall I tell him everyone is like the other,
And the better of the two is really neither?
If I tell him this I think he won't believe it-
And I nearly think that I don't believe it either!-
When my father was a king
He was a king who knew exactly what he knew,
And his brain was not a thing
Forever swinging to and fro and fro and to.
Shall I, then be like my father
And be willfully unmovable and strong?
Or is it better to be right?...
Or am I right when I believe I may be wrong?
Shall I join with other nations in alliance?
If allies are weak, am I not best alone?
If allies are strong with power to protect me,
Might they not protect me out of all I own?
Is a danger to be trusting one another,
One will seldom want to do what other wishes;
But unless someday somebody trust somebody
There'll be nothing left on earth excepting fishes!
There are times I almost think
Nobody sure of what he absolutely know.
Everybody find confusion
In conclusion he concluded long ago
And it puzzle me to learn
That tho' a man may be in doubt of what he know,
Very quickly he will fight...
He'll fight to prove that what he does not know is so!
Oh-h-h-h-h-h
Sometimes I think that people going mad!
Ah-h-h-h-h-h!
Sometimes I think that people not so bad!
But not matter what I think I must go on living life.
As leader of my kingdom I must go forth,
Be father to my children and husband to each wife
Etcetera, etcetera, and so forth.
If my Lord in Heaven Buddha, show the way,
Everyday I try to live another day.
If my Lord in Heaven Buddha, show the way,
Everyday I do my best for one-more day!
[Spoken]
But...Is a puzzlement



but rememeber, I am just a local village idiot, so a lot of these things I do not understand or chose not to.

 

[Nonimus]

Yes............................

 

[peetie75]

As many of you have said.... it depend on the situation... but... in essence, what does this mean for the ends to justify the means..... or visa versa!! I'm serious!! ..maybe give example of differenct situations.... like many of you have done... thanks for your clarification ...

 

[Nonimus]

No. Never. To use the end as a justification for the means implies that the means in and of themselves have no justification and that is not ... justifiable!

This is what happens when you live your life upside down - even your birds can't fly!

 

[blackbeltninja]

Yes, I should wager that the end does justify the means. If I thought hard I could probably find an exception or two, but I'm happy with the end justifying pretty much all means.

And encompassed in all that comes a caveat as well that the needs of the many out-weigh the needs of the few.

Yes, I'm a hard and heartless bastard.

-d-

 

[Lube]

In another question of ends justifying means, take the question of killing in self-defense. Does killing someone else in order to save your life justify killing? I don't think it does. It's certainly understandable, perhaps even excusable, but it is not just, it is not right in and of itself. Murder in self-defense argues that one person's life (mine) is more valuable than someone else's; the fact that the someone else has potentially thrown off the protection of law by attempting an unlawful act (murdering me, allegedly) makes self-defense a legal right, but it still doesn't make the act of killing right. It assumes that my life is more important than anyone else's, and that is morally wrong.

This is a really good example of why "it depends".

The simple black & white answer is: it is never OK to kill.

But then think about someone violently attacking an innocent person: is it OK to strike back and kill. Well, it depends.

If the person being attacked is a police officer, they are trained in being attacked and they are trained in using weapons and they are trained in how to respond. While they certainly should defend themselves, they should be trained to do it in such a way as to try to minimize the damage to the attacker.

OTOH, Joe or Mary Blow, sitting in their kitchen, being attacked by a burglar--well, they have no training in how to defend themselves. It is, I believe, perfectly OK for them to grab the butcher knife and hack at someone with a gun who enters their kitchen threatening to kill them. Should they "try to minimize the damage" the way a police officer would? IMHO, they have no obligation to minimize damage because they have no idea how quickly the intruder might kill or overwhelm them--they have every right to attack until he's dead or at least totally incapacitated (but how do they know he's not faking?). Joe or Mary can't be expected to sit there and spend 10 seconds thinking about how violent they're going to be. So killing the intruder is, IMHO, totally justified.

Again, each situation is different. It depends.